tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN February 11, 2014 8:00am-10:01am EST
>> when somebody shows up at the door and says what's he really like, you know, you're going to stare at them. i've had them twice during my career show up at my house and ask my wife what i'm like. she, obviously, didn't tell the truth, because i kept my clearance. [laughter] but does this make my sense? i don't think so. we need to get -- let me spend my last few minutes on espionage. i'm going to talk about one possibility, and then i'm going to draw short of recommending that as an option. i give the army prosecutors in the manning case highest marks for their attempt to prosecute manning in, under the 1917 espionage act. but, frankly, if they couldn't get it done in the terms of
aiding a foreign power, i think the answer has to be that law cannot get it done. if you have to show that a person is giving away classified information directly to benefit a single foreign power and that's pretty much what it does, where are we these days? p don't give it to a single foreign power, give it to everybody. much more effective sort of thing. in the 1920s and '30s, the soviets recruited young british and to some degree american academics and students in the hopes they would rise to high government positions. i don't mean to attack the press in general, but if i were a soviet or chinese agent, i wouldn't recruit a government employee, i'd recruit a journalist. i mean, quite seriously. or somebody who claimed to be a journalist and just what are the entrance levels to be declared a journalist in this environment?
any event, i to want to take a look for one second at something i'm sure you all looked at over the weekend, and that is section 798 of u.s. code title 18. i'm sure we all read that all the time. michelle van cleeve, by the way, has done a very good piece on this in the recent intelligence report. whoever knowingly and communicate, furnishes or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person or publishes or uses in my matter prejudicial to the safety or interest of the united states any classified information related to codes, ciphers or other comment material shall be fined or imprisoned for ten years or both. anybody here have any impending prosecutions? it's become something of a dead letter. we've had people do this before, and we've declined the prosecute. if there's a flaw in the law, fine. but let's think about whether we need this flaw at all. and, of course, you know that
came up in testimony this week. not so much by name, but the provisions of 798. several years ago i had lunch with walter -- [inaudible] whom some of you may remember is a legend dare figure at the cua. and he mentioned that in the early days he and some-his colleagues actually talked about having an official secrets act, and they discarded it. they didn't think it was needed, they didn't think they'd ever get it through congress, it didn't fit with our values. and i continue to believe it would be difficult to craft such legislation. even though i thought what if you put in things like disclosure to disclose illegality or mall peez sans or corruption would be a positive defense. could you then have such an act? and i can't get myself there. and i think that's, that leaves a hang gap for us. -- a huge gap for us. how do we protect this information that we've collected, that has been overseen by congress, by presidents, by a court from people just publishing it?
i don't know how many of the stories that have appeared in the post, in the times and other newspapers and on the networks relating to nsa from the snowed den files really has to do with nsa violations of the civil liberties of americans. count 'em up. is it 2%? 5%? when i see a story that says nsa's information is being used to support troops in afghanistan, that doesn't strike me as a civil liberties violation. that strikes me as what intelligence agencies do when you have deployed forces. and i think back to my younger days when i heard over and over during the watergate period or that phrase that members of the committee said over ask over, no man is above the law. and i wonder the that's -- if that's still true for us. in any event, i think one of the things we should think about before we go down the dark road of an intelligence secrets act
is how we as a society look at a lawful government conducting some of its functions in secret. and how those should be protected. edmund burke once said that when you want to protect virtue, it is better to do it through society than the state because we all know the state can be a very clumsy and inefficient mechanism. and i would hope at some point we would come to an understanding as a society that the government has a responsibility to keep some information secret and to do so under oversight, to do so under law and that we should not tolerate the somewhat casual disclosure of that information. let me finish with one thought. from time to time, i hear it said even by very senior foreign intelligence officers that the relationship between the american public and the intelligence services is broke
withen. finish broken. i don't believe that. i believe it is seriously strained. i believe the intelligence services need to do a much better job of explaining what it is they do. but i think this is an argument that can be won. i don't see the need for wholesale changes in the intelligence establishment. although there are any number of adjustments to section 215 of the patriot act and any number of things that the congress could make and that i would lose no sleep over. matter of fact, if i were back on active duty and i think most of my colleagues in the intelligence community would share this view, if these are the rules and these are the ways we've been function and i can't think changes -- and congress changes those rules, we will adapt to the changed rules. congress makes the rules, it's as simple as that. but i don't see the need for wholesale change. so where does that leave us? well, in counterintelligence after snowden, it lees us in a
country governed by an imperfect system, that its public and its representatives can change. one of the values of a catholic education is a strong sense of original sin which virtually demands that the world is inherently imperfect and that sometimes the bad guys win. but in this case we live in an imperfect country, and edward snowden lives in putin's russia. who would change places with him? in the meantime, we can continue to count on the dedication and professionalism of the men and women of our counterintelligence and security services, and we can hope for a day when counterintelligence is accepted here as it is in britain as a full peer of the other intelligence services. when i see a volume on mi5 such as chris andrews' defense of the realm, and i think of the prestige they enjoy, i hope buck someday achieve that. but there are obstacles.
for many years i asked my nsa colleagues what if i encouraged my best intern in a given year to pursue a career in counterintelligence? and very often i would get the answer, why would you want to do that to their career? and that's something we very much have to the overcome. my daughter is not here this evening, but i want to say in her absence i've done better than put an intern in the field. she works in south intelligence for cia -- counterintelligence for cia, and i am extremely proud of what she and her colleagues do, and i think all of us should be proud of the men and women who work in that field. with any luck, that tide i referred to several times is going to turn, and american counterintelligence will once again sit at the center of the american intelligence effort. that truly would be an achievement that would honor brian kelly. and until then, i hope the men and women of those services understand how much we value what they do. thank you. [applause]
questions? >> in response to -- [inaudible] and then came back in? is there any questions? nothing? okay, yes, sir. >> i wouldn't bring this up if you hadn't mentioned jfk, but i know oliver stone's perspective -- [inaudible] and, of course, this many years later there is a suspect call public the first one gets from washington especially on issues such as the -- [inaudible] liaison between cia and house select committee who wasn't disclosed in the early '60s. he managed a student group that actually interacted with oswald in new orleans. and to this day there are apparently 1100 files that cia still retains in full, and yet the public is told that oswald and ruby acted alone, and
there's just a disconnect. if they acted alone, why would there be 1100 files? >> let me say i could go beyond jfk, i think he's a horrible director. but i do think if there are 1100 files from that period still sitting classified, and we all know we classify too much and keep it too long, this goes back to my concern about when you have a public dispute of this sort and you're sitting on records that could help resolve that dispute, i think you do great harm to the public record. and i don't know that they're doing that, but that would certainly be my concern. >> [inaudible] any advice on how, how -- [inaudible] be prompted to disclose those records? >> no. no. and, you know -- >> [inaudible] files of david phillips -- [inaudible] >> you may know more about cia history than i do, and i really can't give with you too much advice on how to get that done. i just have that strong view of
mine, i know that nsa just declassified a ton of records from the relatively recent period, and i know it involves some degree of risk on their part because the file so big that the idea of putting eyeballs on every piece of paper was one they finally discarded. and so i give them some credit for going by category and trying to declassify this stuff in a way that allows them to catch up with things of this sort. but it is not a perfect process, and every agency, basically, is its own master. yes, yes, ma'am. >> i'm sarah finish. [inaudible] and i'm a journalist, i work for the bbc. i'm one of the people you want the chinese to recruit. [laughter] i have a question with counterintelligence with -- [inaudible] there was this problem with the people who were looking into it were marginalized, they didn't have, you know -- well, i mean, you know better than i do. >> not necessarily. i mean, it's a big business. the fact is i never worked the ames case. so i really -- you may know more than i to, very easily.
>> but i'm wondering about the culture that allows snowden to disclose all the information, if there's any hint about, you know, how it was, how it happened in terms of culture. >> oh, you know, i have my own ideas, and i want to ever size they're my ideas. one of the things that strikes me about and i don't know that it's true, but it's certainly been reported, that he actually approached people and you're told don't give people your passwords. he approached people as their system administrator and said i'm working on a problem, you know, give me your password. and i have to say, and i would hope i'd know better, but on a busy day and a kauai walks in and he looks like your village machine nerd, you know? and he says i'm your system administrator, and by the way, we do discourage you from giving away your passwords, but i'm different, i've got authority. i have a feeling there's a 50/50 chance i would give it to him. i would hope afterward i'd go to my boss and say do you know anything about this computer failure that they've got the
system admins? he doesn't look like a charming con man, but maybe he's a charming con man. i always think back to one of my favorite tv shows, law and order, who they used to do the same shtick over and over. he'd go someplace he wasn't supposed to get access to, and the land horde would say are you authorized to do this, and he'd give the guy this altar boy look and say, oh, yeah, we're authorized and break into somebody's apartment. i have a suspicion that snowden was very good at getting people's confidence. other questions? yes n the back. >> my name's jeffrey -- [inaudible] i am a graduate student here at the iwp, and i wanted to thank you for visiting i here with -- visiting us here with the courtesy of your time. >> it was either this or olympic opening ceremonies -- [laughter] and i've got to tell you, that's not hutch of a choice. although it is 31 days of oscar on tcm.
>> two of the more salient points you brought up, one was the advance that information technology has on the transaction costs and subsequently the ability of the united states intelligence community to maintain security and more importantly which which i liked that you brought up, the knowledge of the process coupled with a culture shift that you had brought up and the examples you brought up kind of reminded me of the rise of the new left in the mid to late '60s and how it had a role in that culture shift, at least in my observation. and those people in academia are not gone. when i was at syracuse, angela davis teaches there as a distinguished professor, and what is it, the reception that general hayden got when he had tone the presentation on a legalist society was mixed, to say the least. so i guess that leaves my question, that leads to this question. given the impact surrounding the advanced -- [inaudible] telecommunications information technology the culture shift has
had on the united states' ability to maintain operational security and subsequently the role that academia's played in the culture shift as it pertains to the contextual nape of how increasing information is looked at, how -- what role do you think academia could play in shifting that cop textual framework so that it's more fair-minded towards the intelligence community, and what can we do to insure that an area that is supported of the united states pursuing its interest is more effectively heard in that area? >> wow. [laughter] [inaudible conversations] >> there are times when you'd be testifying in the senate, and i would tell people who would have to coffer for me -- cover for me, and if it was a committee that now-vice president biden was on and he's such a finish this is not a -- he's just a very nice person to have to deal with. but it was time for senator biden i would say while he's talking, look for the question someplace.
[laughter] and so there's a little bit of that here. i think as far as the culture of the academic world, you know, the only thing you can hope is the tide comes in and the tide goes to out. generations change, you know? you know, i think i'm lucky to be teaching at university of maryland compared to a lot of other places. i gave an interview with the student newspaper once, and they never published it. they thought it was boring, i think, which is fine. you know, a lot of our faculty have clearances. a lot of our students have parents who work are in the military, work for one of the intelligence agencies, work for booz allen hamilton, this isn't like the university of wisconsin sor someplace. i do hope you've kind of reached the limit to diversity with no diversity school of diversity. at least intellectually in american campuses. because it has gotten really
quite, quite oppressive. you know, in a lot of ways. and all i can say is that on -- part of me says i listen to a lot of bs from my professors in college and graduate school. to some degree, and this is an ethical challenge, but we all have to do it, to some degree i regurgitated the bs back on the paper, can then i left the person behind. not all of this takes. but it is, i think to some degree, dramatically one-side. how you change that, i hi to one degree you have places like in this, you have individual students, and we see it around the country, you know, who basically say i'm not going to go to the freshman orientation course which is a reeducation class. there's something almost quite stalinist about some of these things. but i do think there are limits -- i don't feel, by the way, my school, the school of public policy at maryland, they all know what i did for a living. i've never had anything but the most cordial relationships with
my colleagues, and i think it's because we're a school that deals with a process, not an academic discipline. and i think that makes a big, big difference. i do get invitations every once in a while to speak at other classes across campus, and i can kind of tell when i walk in that the scene has been set for this really evil guy, you know, to show up. [laughter] and i feel a little awkward when i leave, because, you know, the professor walks out, and students crowd around the desk, and i'm sure he his they're telling me i'm really an evil person, and they all want to get jobs in the cia. so i think, hey, i remember how to listen to your professor, nod, write the stuff on the paper and then lift the finger at him when you feel like it. so, you know, i know that's done great damage, the long march to our institutions. but you just hope the tide changes. i know that sounds very pessimistic, but it's not. it is a long view of history. yes, david. >> i'm david --
[inaudible] a psychiatrist -- >> with -- [inaudible] [laughter] >> i wish i had more hope for you, bill -- [laughter] >> so you're telling me you have no hope for me, dave can. how do you feel about that? >> a partial comment to make about this question that's on the floor and then a question based on your comments. you know, you mentioned the u.k. as being more accepting and liking mi5, seeing that -- [inaudible] well, part of the reason for that is the long, hard war that they've had with the ira which presented not somewhere across the sea, but right in their backyard disastrous bombing attacks ask so forth -- and so forth. we are an island nation.
we are an -- [inaudible] nation. 9/11 was an example of something that was disruptive and shattered that sort of serenity and awakened us. however, because of a.d.d., it didn't last all that long. so sorry to say, i think when you're talking about the tide, that can shift probably when we get hammered again. and it wouldn't take as much as a full-blown 9/11 to have a reaction that's quite remarkable on this country. >> this is one of my great concerns. you know, the concern at the moment in the public is what is nsa doing out there, and it wouldn't take much, i think, to have a complete reversal of the public view. there is that point, and, you know, democracies as we sometimes say have two speeds; do nothing and overreact. and i think that's -- look, in
may we had the marathon bombing. and it's funny, that's about two weeks before the snowden articles. so for two weeks we had members of congress, and it must be tough to spin as fast as those guys do. i mean, the skaters tonight won't do it as well, you know? [laughter] you know, but to go there and say these guys -- my least favorite phrase from post-9/11, you guys didn't, once again, you guys didn't connect dots. and it's very clear that if we had wanted to connect the dots, then we should have put n, is a on -- nsa on steroids to deal with the communications of everybody who's ever visited russia or china or any other place. this is tough. and part of it is longer histories. and i really say this with some sympathy, we are new at this. you know? the intelligence services are new at this. the country is new at this. when we say -- we don't even call it domestic intelligence, we call it homeland security. you couldn't live many this city
if you said let's make a department of domestic security. oh, my god, you know? take away all our liberties. your peeps understand -- europeans understand this a little bit differently. maybe they've just been lu more. but, look, eisenhower loved this. in one of his memoirs after the second world war, now, this is the guy who had commanded the allied unvegas force into -- invasion force in europe, and he says americans naturally abhor spy. now, again, a little like don kerr, i don't think he's saying that's a good thing, but i think he's right. one of the questions i always ask my students is what's the most important american intelligence effort between the end of the revolution and the start of the civil war? don't say anything. [laughter] but it's lewis and clark. it's lewis and -- did i remember in the sixth grade or the ninth grade hearing lewis and clark was an intelligence -- oh, no, a
journey of exploration. for military purposes, thank you very much. and economic purposes. it's an intelligence exercise. we don't like that. you know? phil sheridan's a great guy. the pinkertons, of course, the name. be they had a nicer name, you know, pinkerton wouldn't quite be such a bad -- but we do have that. and you know what? as an american, i don't want us to get over that. i don't want us to get over that. this thing exists, inattention, and it always is going to be somewhere off where you'd really like it to be perfectly. by -- i was in turkey a couple years ago, and after i sat down with one of the members of the panel got up and said professor nolte clearly has read lots of locke. we in turkey read hobbs. and when i had a chance to respond i said, no, no, you got that wrong. we read both locke and hobbs because madison read them both. and we do try to balance these things off.
did we overdo it in post-9/11? yes. i regret the pact that this 2011 we didn't do a ten-year tune-up of the patriot act. and the irtpa and the homeland security act. because they desperately needed them. we just don't work that way. and we muddle along. yes, ma'am. i think we'll take two more, and then we'll -- >> thank you. [inaudible] thank you, first of all, thank you very much for the presentation. >> thank you. >> you started off with a couple of points that i'd like to sort of turn back to. you were talking about america's cultural dynamics and early on in cinema the, you know, the spy, pre-world war ii -- post-world war i, pre-world war ii, post-world war ii. and then how it was being presented in this cinematic genre which was the multimedia, which was the media for the u.s. at the time. now, fast forward now to we're
in everything, the whole gamut of, you know, internet, tweeting, everything. so going to a point that -- [inaudible] made a couple months ago here, same podium, about rapid-fire communications. that's okay. he didn't -- [laughter] >> he's a great guy. he is really great. >> the rapid-fire communications -- >> [inaudible] >> rapid-fire information that goes on 24/7 cycle. >> uh-huh. >> and how can the intelligence community through information to the public ever try to keep up with pr, the very things that you're talking about? the american public is virtually
clueless, and the information that a's being left in the -- that's being left in the hands of media that can use it whichever way they want to at any moment they want to flipping it one way or flipping it the other, doesn't really matter. and there doesn't seem to be anybody taking control for their own, for their own agency or agencies, plural, destiny. >> no, listen, one of the things i've talked, you know, i am retired. they do invite me back, they're very patient. and one of the things i've said is, look, when the air force decides it's going to build a new fighter, the story's in the paper. the air force is looking for a fifth generation fighter that will go at this speed, have these stealth characteristics, yada, yada, yada. in some ways you have to distinguish it from the stuff they want to replace because
otherwise the public would say, why? you know, i come from a place that for most of its history its initials stood for no such agency. you're going to have to be different with that. you're going to have to be different with that. i am not sure, ask is i actually think be you went back and looked at speeches general alexander made and testimony, i'm fairly certain you could have pieced together main theme of what we've been hearing, that nsa is sucking up huge amounts of metadata and doing so in the belief there's a supreme court precedent that says metadata is not really covered by forty amendment stuff. -- fourth amendment stuff. and i think a lot of this stuff if you find it before the snowden period, very small stories, page a8, but i have a feeling one of the things the intelligence community may have to do is do a better job of saying this is what we cofor you, and you're going to have to disclose some sources and meds. -- mets. i'm sorry -- methods. i'm sorry. and you're going to have to do some trade-offs of the benefit. mike hayden said in an article
in foreign affairs several years ago the american intelligence can only operate within the space permitted by the american public. he's absolutely right. has this space collapsed because of the controversy? no. but there's pressure on it. and i think it is going to be incumbent on active intelligence leaders and i think to some degree those who are retired doing other things to make the case that, look, you know, this was not -- again request, i'll go back to "the washington post." a couple years ago they did that series top secret america, a fourth branch of government that operates without no supervision, without information. and it's like really? really? no. and i think they should have been much more aggressive in saying concern and, frankly, i give the congress some fault. there was, my concern there was if newspapers are saying there's a fourth be branch of government operating without supervision, that's not ap attack on nsa, that's an attack on the house
intelligence committee, the senate intelligence committee, the armed services committees. where were you guys? >> why do you think there was no response given that -- [inaudible] >> i don't, nobody gets elected or defeated to the congress defending nsa. maybe 2014 it'll change, but, you know, it's not a big issue. and it's always an issue of is it even attractive to serve on one of committees, you know? it's not, it's not something you can, you know, pose for the photo op, you know, congressman so and so opens a new middle school or post office. it's just not a very -- and that's one of the reasons i'm so absolutely pleased with what chairman rogers and congressman rumors berger and senator feinstein and senator chambliss have done over this. they have been really up-front leaders, in my view, on. and mike rogers, okay, mike rogers, conservative republican from michigan, you know, dianne feinstein, former major finish mayor of san francisco.
and she's out defending nsa? that's pretty good stuff. so i think there needs to be -- we have to restrike the balance between what we do in secret and what we open up about. i know they're going to see this and say will goes your clearance, ace. but it's true. we live in a bi-global world, nsa has a museum open to the public, you know? and then when we get an author in there who's been kind of critical, there's a sense of you brought that guy in? yeah. yeah, we're open for discussion. people don't have to like us. i've said this for years to my intention colleagues, there's a nasty story about you in the post or the times today, how do you think treasury department feels? [laughter] ..
. >> i remember being on george kennan test and submit comes and says they have a photo of your house. my house is there. john mclaughlin's house was there. it's like that's interesting. and the big question is, how do i break this to my wife? but we do this. [inaudible] >> that's right. they wouldn't touch it. but i think this is our tough balance. people have actually, how do you teach intelligence in a public university? easy.
i don't talk of secret stuff. my friend mark, you all watched jeopardy last night, as a textbook out on intelligence. we do it through -- this was reviewed by nsa. i think there's got to be more systematic and less episodic. you've got together with a stronger public message. you guys were acting without supervision. you are creating a new body of law. there's this thing called the foreign surveillance intelligence court. nothing nsa did and barring some mistakes but nothing in general and as they did was done without the foreign intelligence surveillance court approving it. and it is not as a major newspaper, i will stop saying his name, is referring to a secretive court. it is not a secretive court. secretive is about behavior. it's secret by legislation that created it. it's a tough issue but i think you've got to be out there a little bit more and engage the fact that people want to be
reassured. and even to the point i can say, and i believe this, the maryland state police, google, nsa, all three of those came -- under privacy which one operates under the tightest supervision? not even close. not even close. nsa operates under tighter supervision and state and local government, which are still doing the metadata thing, all the time with nobody seemed to challenge it. and google? google, really? i do have to say to my students from time to time when you apply for jobs with a clearance, you know you want to be careful about what goes on your social network pages. and some of my students, not these bright and talented people out there but some students if i apply for a job at the cia they can get on my facebook page?
really? [laughter] if you apply for a job at sears they will look at your facebook pages. what the hell. time series. i've had students that say they can't do that. you know those little boxes of small text at the bottom there's a box that says check this and accept it? dingo. you gave it away. this is not one resolve. this is when we manage. that's what americans do. you had -- okay. yes, here. >> i am a student at american university and to do work for the treasury. but i wanted to take the conversation all of it to the international arena. a lot of our challenges security wise are not just national security here, and a lot of those feelings of the american population has about nsa and security community, our intelligence community, they are
mirrored internationally. does that mean we have to solar cells not just to the american population first obviously but also around the globe so that we can address transnational security concerns? >> i think there is a degree to which we have to do this. general hayden didn't realize the fourth amendment was an international treaty. nor do i. but if you think what you need to get to the point where you have bilateral agreements. i really think that's the way you can do this. germany and the united states agree on what information we are going to share so that their governments can say to their population, we have this under control. we do certain things with foreign intelligence services to protect against terrorism but we do it under louis. i think there has to be that understanding. i don't think we can just ignore the fact that this was kind of kind of a shock to a lot of even our ally populations. what's kind of funny has been the reaction more than in one country where there has been a leader standing up and saying,
i'm shocked. the old line from casablanca. i'm shocked there is spying going on here. then three weeks later there's evidence their government is doing the same thing. i think this goes back to let's, over time, get comfortable with what privacy we can expect, where we can expect intrusions, how those intrusions can be overseen. and i think that's a very long conversation. one more and then we will get out of here. >> i am a legislative staffer for the students i'm interested if you would mind elaborating on what changes you think makes the patriot act that would be sufficiently necessary for the public but not necessarily hinder their ability? >> i really don't have any. i haven't looked at the act specifically enough. what i would say, this goes back to the heart methodology.
let's take a look at what those instruments are. let's see, and i particularly look at the post-9/11 legislation. we wrote this legislation very -- i don't mean we but to some degree we were involved. it was done very, very quickly. when we passed -- the country pass the the prevention act, somebody, one of you, was supposed to go through and find every section in the previous clause of the national stood at the gates authority to the director of the central intelligence. and you were supposed to find, your colleagues were supposed to find every instance in which that occurred and put in language that said, the powers given to the director of central intelligence under the 1947 national security act are hereby transferred to the director of national -- and i can tell you at least for those powers that did not get transferred. the congress does 1500 page bills, you know?
the famous, you know, quote from former speaker pelosi, i'll know about after we pass it, or whatever that comment was. i have some sympathy for her for that, but i do know i would choose to go take a look at it. did we connect the dots too much? there was a lot of fear after 9/11. get some of that slip into the patriot act in a way would like to go back off from that? a little bit. i didn't mention this because i've gone on too long, but i'm a big supporter of the civil liberties protection board. i wish them well. i wish they hadn't made that comment in the report to the president that what nsa is doing is illegal. i don't think that's what they're asked to do. i think courts are asked to do that. idiots at the patriot act may have gone too far in certain particulars, i would've thought there really opens up an important discussion so i suspect if you look back at the ir pta, the home and to get at, the patriot act, i think they need a post crisis because they
were really done in a crisis atmosphere and that's not the best guarantor of solid legislation. with that, again, mrs. kelly, thank you so much for being here and thanks again -- i believe you want to single out my students, not just because they are my students and they're hoping they'll get good grades, but we are so proud to have this program with the air force academy. where some of the graduates come to us to get a masters degree or finishing up its always nice to people who are embarking on a career in public service. and i thank you both for being here tonight. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> french president is on a three-day visit to the u.s. this week. yesterday he spent time with president obama touring monticello, the mention former president thomas jefferson in charlottesville, virginia. he will be officially welcome at
the white house. the arrivals will start this morning at nine eastern and we will have live coverage on c-span2. we will have guests arrive, official photo ops all here live on c-span2. coming up later at 10 eastern via senate will gavel in and continue work on a bill dealing with military pensions. that is seeking to repeal the one percentage point in the cost-of-living adjustment for military retirees who are under the age of 62. that reduction was a part of the budget you passed by both the house and the senate in december. at 12:15 p.m., john walsh will be sworn in by vice president joe biden. he will replace former democratic senator max baucus whose last week was confirmed as the new u.s. ambassador to china. newly sworn in fed chair janet yellen is appearing before the house financial services committee. she will deliver first monetary policy report to congress. you can watch live coverage on c-span3 at 10 eastern this
morning. >> although history's other vietnam war might only make passing reference to the f-100 come it's not because they were not there in numbers. perhaps not as glamorous as other planes. their contribution to the war effort was irreplaceable. >> beautiful, absolutely beautiful. it just seems so familiar to actually sit here. >> when we put it back together again you will have to come see it. >> my personal tie to this airplane, is the airplane i flew in vietnam, this very tail number. of the 226 combat missions, i flew about 180 nations in this airplane. it's my titanium mistress. it's what brought me home at
times when it probably shouldn't have, when i abused it, when it did things in order to survive, punished it and it held together. it is an airplane i have such strong feelings for. there's no way i couldn't bring it home if i could. interesting story. i had a painting done by an aviation artist to paint my airplane in its battle garb, and he asked me if i knew what happened to it, and i said no, i didn't, but he said he knew someone who did. when i contacted the person to tell me where it was, in massachusetts, and that got the ball rolling. i said if there's anywa any wayn bring the airplane in out of the cold and present it to our museum patrons in the combat form that it was, that would be my goal in life, and that's what we are working towards. >> this weekend to look beyond history and literary life of macon, georgia, including a stop
at the aviation museum at robins air force base saturday at noon on c-span2 and sunday at 5 p.m. on c-span3. >> the new c-span.org website gives you access to an incredible library of political events with more added each day through c-span's nonstop coverage of national politics, history, and nonfiction books. find a c-span's daily coverage of official washington or access more than 200,000 hours of archived c-span video. everything sees been discovered since 1987, at our video is all searchable and viewable on your desktop computer, tablet or smartphone. just look for the prominent search bar at the top of each page. the new c-span.org makes it easy to watch what's happening today in washington, and find people and events from the past 25 years.
it's the most comprehensive video library in politics. >> the heritage foundation monday hosted what they called the heritage conservative policy summit. congressman jeb hensarling, chairman of the house financial services committee looked at a gathering about housing progra programs. >> i have been concerned about housing finance reform, not simply because i'm a policy wonk about housing but it's because i care passionately about freedom and opportunity and to most of you in this room. simple truth is america cannot have a healthy economy unless we have both a healthy and sustainable housing finance system, regrettably, that is not what we find ourselves today in america. we do not have a healthy, sustainable housing finance system because we lacked both freedom and opportunity. so where are we today in
america? today, hard-working taxpayers have been forced to engage in the mother of all taxpayer bailouts, nearly $200 billion to bail out fannie mae and freddie mac. that is unconscionable. today, taxpayers remain on the hook for more than 5 trillion, a mortgage guarantees, roughly one-third the size of our entire economy, weighing in at roughly $42,000 for american households. ladies and gentlemen, that is unfathomable. and today because of the dodd-frank act, think of the obamacare for credit markets, washington elites decide who can qualify for a mortgage in who will not. that is unfair. changing this unsustainable, unconscionable and unfair system is why the house ahmadinejad services committee that i have the privilege of sharing, has recently approved the protecting
america's taxpayers and homeowners at known as the path act. a system dominated by government control of the housing finance market, the path act offers an alternative vision, one were housing finance system presently resides on private capital and market discipline. the path act includes four fundamental goals essential to development of any free competitive market. first, it clearly defines and limits the role of the state. second, it removes artificial barriers to private capital in order to attract investment and encourage innovation. third, it provides market participants with clear, transparent and enforceable rules and forth, it empowers consumers with more options, more informed choices so that they, not washington bureaucrats, can decide which mortgage products best meet their needs. it begins by ending once and for
all the failed rains of fannie mae and freddie mac, the government sponsored enterprises that were at the epicenter of the financial crisis. the path act faces of both of these failed taxpayer backed corporations over a period of five to seven years. additionally, we repeal the misguided affordable housing goals. we all know that a formal housing is not spelled gsd. it is spelled jlp. and regrettably jobs are in short supply under this administration. -- j-o-b. the need to have fannie or freddie or the equivalent in housing finance system. we should begin by knowing that the u.s. is practically alone in the entire modern industrialized world in having government sponsored enterprises directly guaranteed mortgage securities. the u.s. is also practically alone in the level of direct
government subsidy and intervention into our housing market. and guess what. we were also practically alone in the level of turmoil in our housing markets as measured by foreclosures and languages. ladies and gentlemen, i posit to you there is clearly a direct causal link. by almost any measure fannie and freddie have not propelled the united states the housing finance nirvana. again, when compared to other modern industrialized nations, whether we look at rates of homeownership or whether we look at spreads between mortgage interest rates and sovereign debt, the u.s. can usually be found somewhere around the middle or the bottom of the pack. again, regrettably, there is one unfortunate category with the united states has clearly read, and you guessed it, that is foreclosure rates. only in america can you find a government that subsidizes more so that we the people get less.
but we do not have to look overseas to see a well functioning housing market without government sponsored enterprises. we don't have to look any further than our own jumbo market. that has successfully operated without them. prior to the housing bust the jumbo market was approximately 20% of the total housing market. and in the market we found capital. in that market we found liquidity, competition, the 30 fixed mortgage, consumer choice, innovation, all right here in america. and all of that was delivered for about 25 basis points, or just one quarter of 1%. interest differential from what was provided by the government sponsored enterprises. i would say a modest amount in order to avoid taxpayer bailouts, government controlled and economic catastrophe. and by the way, whatever modest interest rate by down, gses delivered to home buyers, it was cody offset by some extent by
artificially driving up the cost of housing, healthy inflate the housing bubble to so in other words, it is not self-evident that gses ever made any home buyer ever all. i've heard that their arguments for preserving the gses, and those arguments are that they are standardbearers through the underwriting purchase requirements. they serve as loan aggregators for small lenders by purchasing loans through their cash window. and that they provide a conduit for smaller originators to access mortgage investors through the issuance of mortgage-backed securities. and i do believe that these are functions that are indeed helpful to our market place. the path act ushers in a new system of private housing finance that separates out these functions are fighting clear interest of disclosure of mortgage dated, giving certainty to contracts and their enforceability, and creating an
open access utility for mortgage-backed securities issuers that is decoupled from the holding of long-term mortgage rates. that affect also reforms the federal housing administration, the fha, because you will not have a true housing reform without it. otherwise, ladies and gentlemen, your simply pushing one end of the failed balloon only to have it pulled you out on the other. with the path act the fha will finally have a clear defined and limited mission, on that people traditional associate with the federal housing administration and that is helping first time and low to moderate income families while also preserving a countercyclical role. the path act importantly takes the fha out of hud and sets it up as a phone stand-alone agency with the tools and flexibility it needs to pull so -- to fulfill its mission in a less politicized manner.
now more than ever, these reforms of the federal housing administration are critical. just last september the fha became the latest recipient of a taxpayer-funded bailout, the first in the fha's 79 year history, and i believe without the path act, unfortunately, i doubt it will be fha's last. with the bailout that at $1.7 billion to our national debt, which i agree with our former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral mike mullen, is the single greatest existential threat facing our nation today. if any of you have ever attended or watched proceedings of the house financial services committee, of which i chair, you will see us run in real-time a continuous display of the national debt clock. it serves as a constant and sobering reminder of the threat to get something that looms
large over every issue we debate in the committee room and, indeed, on capitol hill. unnatural death under president obama is unsustainable, unconscionable, and i believe immoral, and it must come to an end. not only will the bankrupt the fha help no one, a bankrupt america will never be the. the path act will put the fha on the right financial footing so it can fulfill its mission safely and soundly. some critics of the path act have called ending the gac bailout, putting private capital in the center of housing finance and rightsizing fha as quote unquote ideological. i believe what is ideological is being wedded to a status quo which condemns the american people to a never ending cycle of boom, bust and bailout. some have asked how the path act will impact a 30 year fixed-rate
mortgage, that has been a traditional mortgage relied upon by so many. i will tell you will continue to exist. the path act will not change that. in fact, the path act i believe is the only housing bill before congress that specifically protects the 30 year fixed rate mortgage. other bills do not even mention it. the path act is designed to keep mortgage rates low on nongovernment 30 year fixed rate mortgages. through the creation of a new common securitization utility that will help level the playing field between big and small financial institutions and health protects consumers by giving them more choices. and i should note that although the path act will preserve the 30 year fixed mortgage, importantly, it will not steer people into the 30 year fixed mortgage. it may be the right product for some, but it is not necessary the right product for all. the real threat to homeowners and financial institutions alike, again, is the dodd-frank
act. don't take my word for. moody's chief economist mark zandi, perhaps one of the most quoted economist of the left has testified that dodd-frank has written that increased mortgage interest rates one to four percentage points, and reports that half of the mortgage loans may just last year would not comply with the dodd-frank rules that went to -- went into effect just last month. in short dodd-frank asked to cut the number of mortgages in america in half and double the cost of those that remain. that's why the path act will reverse many of the most harmful regulatory burdens of the dodd-frank act that had been imposed upon consumers and businesses alike. let me conclude with these thoughts. as our nation charged a path for coming in will remain tame we're having a debate between house and no house.
i disagree with that framing. i think the real choice is whether or not our generation is going to perpetuate a system that demands more house for us so that our children in turn will receive less house tomorrow. if so, what an unjust inheritance we leave the next generation. and that's why -- >> we believe these remarks at this point to go live to the south lawn of the white house is the official arrival ceremony for french president all along getting underway this point. is on the second of three day visit to the u.s. -- hollande. >> [background sounds]
[background sounds] >> again, we are live on the south lawn of the white house as we are awaiting the arrival of french president francois hollande here in washington, d.c. president obama and mrs. obama will be joining him as the ceremony will get under way. to let you know, the president will hold meetings with president hollande and officials of of his delegation. at noon they will conduct a joint news conference and later tonight president obama and first lady michelle obama will host a state dinner in honor of president hollande. coverage begins at 6:30 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. again, i waiting for the start of this arrival here at the white house.
>> france is america's oldest ally. in the recent years we have deepened our alliance. and today, on behalf of the american people, and michelle and myself, it is a great honor to welcome my friend, president hollande, and his delegation for the first state visit to the united states. in fact, the first state visit by french president in nearly 20 years. [cheers and applause] [speaking french] >> yesterday at monticello, we reflected on the values that we share. the ideals of the heart of our alliance. here under the red, white and
blue, and the blue, white and red, we declare our devotion once more to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. [speaking french] [applause] >> for more than two centuries we have not only proclaimed our ideals, our citizens have bled to preserve them. from a field in yorktown to the beaches of normandy, to the mountains of afghanistan. and today, we are honored to be joined by two extraordinary men
who were there those historic days 70 years ago. i ask them to stand, proud veterans of d-day who are here in attendance today. [cheers and applause] [speaking french] >> so it's no exaggeration that we stand here because of each other. we owe our freedom to each other. of course, we americans also think our french friends for so much else. this capital city, our statue of liberty, a gift from france.
and something many americans are especially grateful for, new orleans and the french quarter. [laughter] [speaking french] >> mr. president, like generations before us, we now the task not simply to preserve our enduring alliance, but to make it new for our time. no one nation can meet today's challenges alone, nor seize this opportunity to more nations must step up and meet the responsibly of leadership, and that is what the united states and france are doing together.
[speaking french] >> to our french friends, i say let's do more together for the security that our citizens deserve, for the prosperity that they seek, and for the dignity of people around the world who seek what we declared two centuries ago. those unattainable rights, those sacred rites of man. ..
speaking in french because i am obliged to do that. for my country. [speaking french] >> my delegation and myself as friends, but i am particularly touched by the reception by the president of the united states. [speaking french] >> we are always united by common history from your term to the beaches of normandy, as you
said, each of our country's know what it means for the other, its freedom. [speaking french] >> yesterday we were in monticello, thomas jefferson, great american statesman, once ambassador to france who remained one of the most beautiful symbols of the ties that unite us. [speaking french] >> this afternoon at the
forget the spirit and sacrifice shown by in these american soldiers, nameless heroes who left their homes to liberate my country and you is. we shall pay tribute to them during celebrations that take place in france to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the normandy landing and i hope that you will join me in the sixth of june, 2014, 70 years after d-day, [speaking french] >> our two countries hold universal values, values that inspired eleanor roosevelt to rise together the universal declaration of human rights.
[speaking french] [speaking french] >> we stand together to fight terrorism, the united states stands side by side to make the salutation prevailed. we stand together with the united states to address the strength of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and chemical weapons, together to solve the crises faced by the middle east, to gather support
[speaking french] >> today we stand united and we built a model of friendship, a friendship that is the best recipe for a better world. a world such as the one by thomas jefferson and lafayette. it is not just about friendship, it is about an alliance that will enable us to make this world a better place, a safer place, a more humane place. [speaking french]
[speaking french] [speaking french] >> thank you, mr. president, i am proud to stand here. you are a great man of the united states of america and you represent the united states of america, a country where everything is possible for who wants it, a country devoted to freedom and equality, long live the united states, long live france, long live the franco american friendship.
♪ >> president obama and first lady michelle ng obama hosting french president francois hollande, the french president in the midst of a three day state visit in washington d.c.. president obama will hold meetings with president obama and members of the delegation. president obama and first lady michele obama will host a state dinner in honor of president hollande.
coverage of state dinner, on c-span2. president obama travel to charlottesville va to tour monticello, thomas jefferson's mistake. they briefly spoke with reporters. >> this has been a wonderful visit. this is an appropriate way to start because what it signifies is the incredible history between the united states and france. [speaking french] >> as one of our founding
fathers who wrote the declaration of independence, somebody who not only was an extraordinary political leader, one of our great scientific and cultural leaders, thomas jefferson, but as we see as we follow through, what he also wrote, the quotable -- what he gave to the united states because he was a francophile through and through. [speaking french] >> he drew inspiration from the
enlightenment ideas that have been developed in france and throughout europe but he also drew from the arts, the architecture, the writings from the culture of the cuisines of france, so in this sense, represents the bond that helped lead to the american revolution, help to influence the french revolution, figures like lafayette who played a central role in our own independence. all of this signified at monticello. i hope in starting this way, just as we can extend back through generations the links between the united states and france tomorrow we have an opportunity to talk about not only our current bonds of alliance but also ways that we can strengthen our cooperation
>> welcome to monticello and look forward to it. [speaking french] >> thank you for having invited me. this is thomas jefferson's house. which means this was a man who understood from the enlightenment. and he wanted to represent life throughout the house like everywhere. object and the refinement of these objects and this architecture. so why is this house a symbol?
because here lafayette was welcome. together lafayette and jefferson imagined something that seemed impossible, namely american independence and the cumin rights and the rights -- thomas jefferson drafted the declaration of independence and lafayette was also involved as a citizen and they met together in this house. must jefferson had been ambassador of the united states to france. i do believe that is the only
american president who had that experience. and he was u.s. ambassador to france at the time of the french revolution. and he departed from france in august of 1789. which means after the fourteenth of july he felt he had seen enough. [speaking french] >> and involved in the governance of the united states before becoming president. and jefferson approaches louisiana for napoleon. not demanding anything.
[speaking french] >> that these bonds are sustained over time. because he represents value. freedom and human dignity. these are the values which we continue to fight around the world, the united states and france. we were allies, jefferson and lafayette. we were friends and we were made friends forever. thank you. >> thank you very much, everybody. >> reminders of we will have live coverage of tonight's state dinner for the president of france beginning at 6:30
eastern, guest officials, photo ops and the toast will all be on here on c-span2 live again at 6:30 eastern. new the sworn in fed chair janet yellen is appearing before the house financial services committee delivering her first monetary policy report to congress. live coverage getting underway at 10:00 eastern 10 minutes from now on c-span3. later at 10:00 eastern the u.s. and will gathering working on a bill dealing with military pensions, a measure seeking to repeal a one percentage point reduction in the cost-of-living adjustment for military retirees under the age of 62. the senate gaveling in at 10:00 eastern, live coverage on c-span2. at 12:15 montana democratic senator john walsh will be sworn in by joe biden. he will be replacing former democratic senator max baucus and last week was confirmed by the u.s. ambassador to china. the house also planning to debate a clean-limit increase from several sources, politico
jake chairman tweeting now that house republicans are abandoning their debt limit plan and try the debt limit bill, john boehner made the announcement in a meeting. recently spoke with reporters covering the congressional debate over the debt ceiling. >> eric was and is a staff writer for the hill newspaper, house republicans held a special meeting in the basement of the capital to talk strategy on the debt limit. what did they decide? >> the meeting broke up and decisions -- john boehner and speaker of the house presented a plan for the conference and they are now doing the current vote in the following hours trying to get on it but the plan is to raise the debt ceiling for about a year and to catch a fix to the military pension costs of living adjustment change that was made in december, basically congress cut future military pensions by
$6 billion and that caused serious backlash from veterans groups and others live with them. the way it would be paid for is by extending cuts to medicare to take place through 2023 for an additional year. some conservatives expressed some disappointment with the idea to pay for thinking that savings ten years down the road is a budget gimmick. so right now they are trying to assess whether they can get enough votes to pass this and it remains to be seen. one test would be if they can get 218 votes to pass it without democratic help as it stands right now. democrats insisting on a clean debt ceiling increase with no attachments, another test maybe if they get some democratic help with a majority of the republic on board. >> what kind of support does the house republican leadership except from specific house
democrats and even fellow republicans for that matter? >> in the leadership retreat that happened just a few weeks ago, house republicans basically said that they were looking for something that would get democratic support and i think this military cost of living adjustment is unpopular, and in a bipartisan way. the senate just voted 94-0, procedural bills that would reverse the cut. something that they are looking at, the policy matters should appeal to a large number of democrats. democratic leaders in the white house decide they don't want to be the from their line of and no negotiation, the debt ceiling remains to be seen. >> what is the timeline on the house floor? could we see action on the debt limit before the deadline set by treasury secretary jack lew feb. twenty-seventh?
>> everyone agrees we have to, lifting wholly unknown black swan event which set no precedent. basically they are looking to have a vote on wednesday and that would mean filing a bill under house rules sometime tonight. that is a possibility. the wednesday deadline come because they are leaving for their annual retreat in maryland also questions about snow storm coming in wednesday across the bay. that will bring us up to the deadline because next week there's a presidents' day recess here and recess and retreat stay in effect. maybe two days before the deadline before the house comes back. >> where do you think the senate might take up the debt limit? >> that is a question. i would imagine they would move very swiftly if either plan passes because of the urgency of the matter and the white house concern over it. >> americans for tax reform had
a number of groups say they don't like this plan. what impact might they have? >> the grover norquist, head of americans for tax reform was very influential especially on tax matters. this is a spending matter so it is not exactly the same wage. basically most republicans have signed the no new taxes' pledge and able to hold their feet to the fire. he retains other influence on spending matter so is important in that group included in national taxpayers union and other groups as well. that will fuel significant defection. remains to be seen how large it will be. there are a large number of conservatives from jim jordan, matt salmon -- >> twitter account >> twitter account e >> twitter account lwass
>> twitter account on >> twitter account is . thanks for joining us. an update on the debt ceiling agreement. house republicans offering the clean up. it may come up early today. watch the house live on c-span1. >> saturday booktv is live in georgia for the savannah book festival. it starts at 9:00 eastern with gabriel chairman with roger ailes and fax -- fox news and continues on k-9 warriors. astronauts' wives and woodrow wilson. john rizzo on his work for the cia. and the life of norman rockwell. part of the three president's day weekend. march 2nd, black power, the civil rights movement. joseph will take e-mails,
comment and wes from noon until 9:00 eastern. online on booktv's book club. bonnie morris, read a women's history for beginners. click on book club to enter the chat room. >> the u.s. and gambling in now and will continue work on a bill dealing with military pensions. it seeks to repeal one percentage point reduction in the cost-of-living adjustments for military retirees and the age of 62. at 12:15 montana democratic senator designate john walsh will be sworn in by vice president joe biden. john walsh will replace former democratic senator max baucus who last week was confirmed as u.s. ambassador to china. live to the senate floor on c-span2.